Slide 1. slide 2 slide 3 Risk to Ready begins with the Early Development Instrument Developed in...
-
Upload
marybeth-booth -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Slide 1. slide 2 slide 3 Risk to Ready begins with the Early Development Instrument Developed in...
slide 1 slide 1
slide 2 slide 2
slide 3 slide 3
Risk to Ready begins with the Early Development Instrument
Developed in Canada in 1998 and expanding across US since 2009 through the TECCS network
Population-based (results for neighborhoods and schools but not individual children)
Teacher-administered (no child involvement or use of class time)
Kindergarten level (first comprehensive and comparable assessment under grade 3)
Multi-domain (not just “academics”)Evaluations show high reliability, moderate
validity, good predictive validity
slide 4 slide 4
EDI Content• Bullet pointsDomain Sub-domains
Physical health and well-being Physical readiness for school dayPhysical independenceGross and fine motor skills
Social competence Overall competence with peersRespect and responsibilityApproaches to learningReadiness to explore new things
Emotional maturity Pro-social and helping behaviorAnxious and fearful behaviorAggressive behaviorHyperactive and inattentive behavior
Language and cognitive development Basic literacy skillsInterest in literacy/numeracyAdvanced literary skillsBasic numeracy skills
Communication skills and general knowledge
(no sub-domains)
slide 5 slide 5
Which children?This presentation includes data for the first 2 years of 3• 150 teachers in 40 schools• Approx. 3,000 students (60% of project area
kindergarteners)
• 87% free or reduced price meals (counts TPS only)
• 60% attended pre-kindergarten in the same district
• 18% (552) attended CAP early childhood programs
• 27% English language learners• 7% with Individualized Education Plans
slide 6 slide 6
How EDI Results are ReportedDomain results
◦ “Very ready”: scoring at or above the 75th percentile from the 2010 U.S. sample of nearly 18,000 children
◦ “At risk”: scoring at or below the 10th percentile from the 2010 national sample
◦ “Somewhat ready”: scoring between 10th and 75th percentile
Overall results◦ “Very ready”: scoring very ready on 4 or 5 of
the 5 domains◦ “At risk”: scoring developmentally vulnerable on
2 or more domains
slide 7 slide 7
Tulsa and National Results
National (52,211 children)
Tulsa (3,117 children)
0% 50% 100%
15%
20%
15%
14%
At RiskSomewhat ReadyVery Ready
Note: Participation is voluntary and national results do not necessarily represent all children nationally.
slide 8 slide 8
Domain Results
Communication
Language
Emotional
Social
Physical
0% 20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
9%
12%
18%
15%
20%
34%
30%
25%
24%
25%
At RiskSomewhat ReadyVery Ready
slide 9 slide 9
Risk by DomainTulsa vs. National
Phys
ical
Social
Emot
iona
l
Lang
uage
Comm
unicat
ion
0%5%
10%15%20%25%
Tulsa (3,117 children)National (52,211 children)
Number of Domains
Note: Participation is voluntary and national results do not necessarily represent all children nationally.
slide 10 slide 10
By Family Income(TPS Only, Based on Meal Status)
Paid (260 children)
Reduced (142 children)
Free (1,580 children)
0% 20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
8%
21%
23%
21%
15%
10%
At RiskSomewhat ReadyVery Ready
slide 11 slide 11
By Race (TPS Free Meals Only)
Multiracial (116 children)
African American(515 children)
Hispanic (515 children)
White (354 children)
0% 50% 100%
28%
28%
13%
28%
8%
7%
14%
9%
At RiskSomewhat ReadyVery Ready
slide 12 slide 12
By Gender
Male (1,623 children)
Female (1,492 children)
0% 20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
27%
13%
10%
18%
At RiskSomewhat ReadyVery Ready
slide 13 slide 13
By Special Education
Child has IEP (233 children)
Child does not have IEP (2,859 children)
0% 50% 100%
53%
17%
0%
15%
At RiskSomewhat ReadyVery Ready
slide 14 slide 14
Teacher Believes Child has Special Need
Yes (546 children)
No (2,570 children)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%100%
60%
12%
0%
17%
At RiskSomewhat ReadyVery Ready
slide 15 slide 15
Parent Attended Conference
Yes (2,574 children)
No(539 children)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%100%
18%
32%
16%
6%
At RiskSomewhat ReadyVery Ready
slide 16 slide 16
By Prekindergarten
No Pre-K (1,273 children)
Pre-K (1,844 children)
0% 20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
24%
17%
13%
15%
At RiskSomewhat ReadyVery Ready
Pre-K includes CAP and public schools.
slide 17 slide 17
ECE Cumulative ImpactsTPS Free Lunch Only
No known ECE (595 children)
1 year pre-k only(756 children)**
2 years ECE (206 children)*
0% 50% 100%
28%
20%
17%
8%
11%
10%
At RiskSomewhat ReadyVery Ready
*Includes 2 years CAP and 1 year CAP + 1 year public pre-k.**Includes CAP and public pre-k.CAP minimum 90 days per year.
slide 18 slide 18
By CAP ParticipationTPS Free Lunch Only
No CAP (1,2277 children)
CAP as 1, 2, 3, or 4 (353 children)
CAP as 3 (229 children)
CAP as 4 (185 children)
0% 50% 100%
23%
20%
18%
15%
10%
9%
10%
10%
At RiskSomewhat ReadyVery Ready
Participated CAP >=90 days. CAP as 3 and any CAP includes Rosa Parks
slide 19 slide 19
CAP Risk by DomainTPS Free Lunch Only
Phys
ical
Social
Emot
iona
l
Lang
uage
Comm
unicat
ion
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
CAP as 4CAP as 3CAP as 1,2,3,or 4No CAP
Number of Domains
Participated CAP >=90 days. CAP as 3 or any CAP includes Rosa Parks
slide 20 slide 20
Correlation with OCCT• We examined the correlation between
EDI scores and 3rd grade OCCT scores in the same year at the school level (not the student level)
• OCCT scores are more correlated with the EDI Very Ready measure than the At Risk measure
Correlation Coefficients
3rd grade % Proficient or Advanced
% At Risk on EDI
% Very Ready on EDI
Math -0.35 0.45
Reading -0.24 0.42
slide 21 slide 21
Correlations by Domain
% At Risk by Domain3rd grade % Proficient or Advanced
Physical health and wellbeing
Social competence
Emotional maturity
Language and
cognitive developmen
t
Communication skills and
general knowledge
Math -0.32 -0.20 -0.38 -0.29 -0.09
Reading -0.21 -0.11 -0.27 -0.23 -0.02% Very Ready by Domain
3rd grade % Proficient or Advanced
Physical health and wellbeing
Social competence
Emotional maturity
Language and
cognitive developmen
t
Communication skills and
general knowledge
Math 0.45 0.25 0.02 0.34 0.34
Reading 0.40 0.19 0.00 0.30 0.35
slide 22 slide 22
Next Steps
2012-13—Data coming soon◦Finished Tulsa partners◦2 districts in Kay County◦2 districts in SE Oklahoma
2013-14—Transitions◦Finished in Tulsa◦New partners enrolling in SE◦Potential expansion in Kay County
22
slide 23 slide 23
For more informationPaul Shinn, Public Policy Analyst, CAP
◦[email protected]◦(918)855-3638
Cindy Decker, Senior Research Associate for Data & Accountability, CAP◦[email protected]◦(918) 382-3294
www.risktoready.orgTransforming Early Childhood
Community Systems◦http://www.teccs.net/
23
slide 24 slide 24